| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
It never fails to amaze me how much of a crapshoot this subforum is.
On the one hand, you have your "popular" threads. Like popular videos on Youtube, these threads are not chosen for their quality (or legitimate questioning) so much as for how interesting or fiercely fought the issue is. If I posted a thread entitled "Fighter discovers this one weird trick that can solve your martial-caster disparity in one week!", it would reach at bare minimum two pages.
On the other hand, you have your "unpopular" threads. Like the hot topics, these threads often aim to explore legitimate gray areas. And yet they only get about five-to-ten posts, tops. Why? Sometimes they're not as catchy. Sometimes it's a bad title, or it's just a really obvious issue. And sometimes nobody notices them because they get swallowed. This is one of the fastest-moving subforums on the Boards. It happens often.
I would like to be able to depend on this subforum for answers. It's the only community from which I can get answers.
So can we please stop with the senseless arguments? Threads like "DC to jump 10 feet" do not need to go on so long. Look for threads without many posts and lend your opinion, or at least your advice. Stop arguing rules that obviously can't get resolved without a designer's input. It wastes time and buries actual rules questions.
I know I'm getting italics-heavy, but I'm really tired of 500 post-threads that are basically five people worried that, if they stop arguing for one second, they won't get to say "I told you so" when the FAQ hits and of course confirms what they believe.
I guess what I'm saying can be boiled down like this:
That makes it easier for me to find threads I want. It doesn't make it easier to get answers unless everyone else does it, too. :P
In case anybody's wondering, this is about 80% rant. I'm just hoping the remaining 20% reaches some people.
|
So can we please stop with the senseless arguments? Threads like "DC to jump 10 feet" do not need to go on so long.
For the record, again, people on both sides of that argument thought the other side was being nonsensical.
Just because the FAQ fell on your side doesn't mean the discussion was senseless.
*continues to toss pits in front of his PCs so they can get an extra 5ft of move each round*
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Just because the FAQ fell on your side doesn't mean the discussion was senseless.
You're right! The discussion was senseless because after a couple pages, it was obvious that continued discussion wouldn't help either side convince the other of their interpretation of the ruling.
The FAQ fell "on my side"? Dude, I didn't argue in that ridiculousness, and I didn't have a side (other than "Holy crap, this is the stupidest thread ever"). Assuming makes you an ass out of ing, or whatever.
It was, however, a discussion that could only be resolved by an FAQ. Instead, you (because I assume you were arguing in it, hypocrisy!) and the rest continued to argue for, like, a jillion posts.
I'm glad you appreciate the irony, but I'm not complaining about rant threads, so I think you're just really trying to find irony in this. Just like you're trying to mark me as someone taking potshots at the opposition in a nonsensical rules debate that ended months ago.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No, the irony was when I posted a metathread complaining about metathreads. Geez, I even make these distinctions easy, and still I have to clarify. ;P
Just because the FAQ fell on your side doesn't mean the discussion was senseless.You're right! The discussion was senseless because after a couple pages, it was obvious that continued discussion wouldn't help either side convince the other of their interpretation of the ruling.
Arguments like that are never about convincing the other side, they are about convincing observers — Paizo staff, for instance.
|
|
Arguments like that are never about convincing the other side, they are about convincing observers — Paizo staff, for instance.Just because the FAQ fell on your side doesn't mean the discussion was senseless.You're right! The discussion was senseless because after a couple pages, it was obvious that continued discussion wouldn't help either side convince the other of their interpretation of the ruling.
Careful with the superlatives.
Arguments like that are never about convincing the other side, they are about convincing observers — Paizo staff, for instance.Just because the FAQ fell on your side doesn't mean the discussion was senseless.You're right! The discussion was senseless because after a couple pages, it was obvious that continued discussion wouldn't help either side convince the other of their interpretation of the ruling.
Not really. Arguments like that are arguing for the sake of arguing. It's the same thing as Creationism vs Evolution. Both can be right and both can be wrong. Just so long as the other guy isn't right.
If possible, I would send the posters to their rooms to think about what they've done to the boards.
Logically, wouldn't the pits only affect the Acrobatics DC, leaving the distance traveled unchanged? So, jumping across a five-foot pit would take up ten feet of movement (because you have to move to the opposite square), but be a DC 5 Acrobatics—
Whoops. There I go. See? This stuff is addictive, even to a seasoned griper such as myself!
|
He's not able to. If his jump succeeds but his single move of 40ft leaves him one square shy of solid ground, he would need to spend another move action to move into that square safely. If his double move left him there, he would have to wait until his next turn. If his next action was not stepping into that square with solid ground, he would fall.
Arguments like that are never about convincing the other side, they are about convincing observers — Paizo staff, for instance.Just because the FAQ fell on your side doesn't mean the discussion was senseless.You're right! The discussion was senseless because after a couple pages, it was obvious that continued discussion wouldn't help either side convince the other of their interpretation of the ruling.Not really. Arguments like that are arguing for the sake of arguing. It's the same thing as Creationism vs Evolution. Both can be right and both can be wrong. Just so long as the other guy isn't right.
If possible, I would send the posters to their rooms to think about what they've done to the boards.
But the people arguing evolution vs creation are trying to convince observers that may be on the fence about it, with creationists in particular trying to woo policymakers into giving them some concessions.
I think it was Michael Shermer who proposed that many of our beliefs are arrived at for "non-smart reasons", and once such a belief is formed, it's practically impossible to change their minds even with airtight reasoning and rock-solid evidence. In other words, once the opposing lines form they quickly solidify and it's incredibly difficult for the participants to actually convince their opponents to change sides. On some level they know it, and the whole exercise is really an effort to convince neutral observers to join their side.
|
|
I've had great success in life convincing many neutral observers to adopt my line of thinking; I've been a salesman most of my career.
Similarly I was incredibly active politically around the years of 2008/2009, attending (or organizing my own) protests and demonstrations regarding gay rights and marriage equality. My friends and I successfully changed the views of quite a few people during those years, usually by directly confronting them with evidence and philosophical arguments.
Those are skills that I find to be incredibly relevant in these forums.
This most recent debate regarding 10' pits was not "arguing for the sake of arguing" or "convincing Paizo staff", it was the same sort of practice as explaining that you need Power Attack before you take Cleave. It was an understanding so simple that I couldn't believe others didn't get it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, clearly that's not the case. However, let's actually come up with a spell or class feature of the same name! It could even be a universal class archetype designed to be compatible with most class archetypes. You know, for double dipping in specialization. Though it would probably be easier if it were just a spell.
My personal thought is that it's the name of an extremely troll-ish mesmerist who mind controls people into having pointless arguments.
Anyway: The thing about many rules questions getting few answers is that they are either simple, and generally hold a consensus (Rogues do get multiple sneak attacks a round!) or the majority of posters (I presume here on in) don't feel knowledgeable enough to respond; How should I rule simulacrum tricks? I don't sodding know!
Then threads come up that are easy enough to understand the situation, and the event described but two separate interpretations are formed. Those get popular. Good or bad everyone holds some ideas about, and it requires no specialist knowledge to form an opinion is an act is evil - So Paladin fall threads go on until eternity.
I guess what I'm saying can be boiled down like this:
Preach!
I guess what I'm saying can be boiled down like this:Preach!
The issue is that only top FAQed numbers get FAQs so if everyone flags and moves on the threads passes front page in about 3 days. And with only one or two replies it might not even garner additional hits due to lack of activity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nothing i'm sure it will get moved I know I flagged for wrong forum.
I really enjoyed the Acrobatics DC thread. Having looked at the rules, I found them to be entirely unambiguous, but in order for them to work, you have to avoid making certain assumptions about gameplay (like the idea that characters jump from 5-foot square to 5 foot-square, when they actually jump from point to point within squares, and this is separate from distance moved, which does use 5-foot squares). I felt like if could just work out what people's underlying assumptions were, I'd be able to explain where they were going wrong and sort things out. It wasn't easy, due to the large number of poorly argued posts creating noise and confusion.
Alas, Paizo ruined a perfectly good debate by posting their FAQ (which was almost identical to the short version of my explanation).
If the people not interested in topics or who think they've gone on long enough would just leave such threads alone instead of snarkily posting to show their disinterest or disapproval, those mega-threads would be at least 5% shorter. Hey, it's a start.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you agree that nobody should post to threads like this please post here saying so.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I saw the name of this thread, I actually thought that Bickerspam was a class feature or a spell that someone took a shine to and wanted to make a thread hating on it.
Well, clearly that's not the case. However, let's actually come up with a spell or class feature of the same name! It could even be a universal class archetype designed to be compatible with most class archetypes. You know, for double dipping in specialization. Though it would probably be easier if it were just a spell.
So, have at it! Enjoy! Maybe someone will actually publish it.
I was worried that Bicker was like an Antagonize feat but with no limit on usage...